Huh? I have a bachelor degree in English and a bit of logic and philosophy.However I have made a study of many wrongful murder convictions, and there are clear patterns, all components are present in this Bamber case, but signally, it is often reliance on one highly contentious forensic matter, the blood in the silencer here. cf. The dna on a bra clasp in Knox/Sollecito, the cartridge case in Arthur Thomas, the shirt spots in Mark Lundy, the two hairs in Scott Watson, the serrated knife in Damien Echols, the blood in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, the bogus blood test in Lindy Chamberlain and so on.Unfortunately these matters convict in first instance because jurors tend to believe what the police bring to court. In subsequent proceedings the appeal courts start with destination guilty, to preserve the sanctity of the disastrous jury system, and stagger drunkenly backwards to the crime scene cherry picking bits that can formulate a fictional narrative.However, only one domino needs to be removed to thwart a world record toppling attempt.Appeal courts, please understand this, and learn to reverse false convictions like this one. You will sleep better.

Huh? I have a bachelor degree in English and a bit of logic and philosophy.However I have made a study of many wrongful murder convictions, and there are clear patterns, all components are present in this Bamber case, but signally, it is often reliance on one highly contentious forensic matter, the blood in the silencer here. cf. The dna on a bra clasp in Knox/Sollecito, the cartridge case in Arthur Thomas, the shirt spots in Mark Lundy, the two hairs in Scott Watson, the serrated knife in Damien Echols, the blood in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, the bogus blood test in Lindy Chamberlain and so on.Unfortunately these matters convict in first instance because jurors tend to believe what the police bring to court. In subsequent proceedings the appeal courts start with destination guilty, to preserve the sanctity of the disastrous jury system, and stagger drunkenly backwards to the crime scene cherry picking bits that can formulate a fictional narrative.However, only one domino needs to be removed to thwart a world record toppling attempt.Appeal courts, please understand this, and learn to reverse false convictions like this one. You will sleep better.

Huh? I have a bachelor degree in English and a bit of logic and philosophy.However I have made a study of many wrongful murder convictions, and there are clear patterns, all components are present in this Bamber case, but signally, it is often reliance on one highly contentious forensic matter, the blood in the silencer here. cf. The dna on a bra clasp in Knox/Sollecito, the cartridge case in Arthur Thomas, the shirt spots in Mark Lundy, the two hairs in Scott Watson, the serrated knife in Damien Echols, the blood in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, the bogus blood test in Lindy Chamberlain and so on.Unfortunately these matters convict in first instance because jurors tend to believe what the police bring to court. In subsequent proceedings the appeal courts start with destination guilty, to preserve the sanctity of the disastrous jury system, and stagger drunkenly backwards to the crime scene cherry picking bits that can formulate a fictional narrative.However, only one domino needs to be removed to thwart a world record toppling attempt.Appeal courts, please understand this, and learn to reverse false convictions like this one. You will sleep better.

I don't see how any of the above relates to the Bain retrial, where Dean Cottle's evidence was given extra weight by being read out by the judge, and no medical evidence on Robin's state of mind offered as you implied.

Mark Lundy's case became ever more technical in his retrial, but I am pleased the jurors reached the correct decision that his wife and 7-year-old daughter had been bludgeoned to death with a tomahawk-type weapon, part of the wife's brain tissue sticking to his shirt.

I don't see how any of the above relates to the Bain retrial, where Dean Cottle's evidence was given extra weight by being read out by the judge, and no medical evidence on Robin's state of mind offered as you implied.

Mark Lundy's case became ever more technical in his retrial, but I am pleased the jurors reached the correct decision that his wife and 7-year-old daughter had been bludgeoned to death with a tomahawk-type weapon, part of the wife's brain tissue sticking to his shirt.

Sounds grusome. How could Lundy claim to be innocent if part of his wife's brain was found on his shirt ?

I don't see how any of the above relates to the Bain retrial, where Dean Cottle's evidence was given extra weight by being read out by the judge, and no medical evidence on Robin's state of mind offered as you implied.

Mark Lundy's case became ever more technical in his retrial, but I am pleased the jurors reached the correct decision that his wife and 7-year-old daughter had been bludgeoned to death with a tomahawk-type weapon, part of the wife's brain tissue sticking to his shirt.

Steve_UK:

You are now wallowing in an evidence free swamp.I regret to have to say it, but your opinions are very wrong.I see no prospect that you will emerge from your straitjacketed beliefs.I have offered you a triple checked factual account of how Mark Lundy came to be wrongly convicted. This is an account that has been read by few, but here is a review by an exceptional case analyst.

.........................................

That's a fantastic read, very well written, both entertaining and rage-inducing. I actually enjoyed it far more than Karam's book on Bain, which I found a bit of a slog. The whole trial is equally outrageous and horrific, so bad it almost makes the Bain and McDonald police investigations look semi-professional.

1. How the police can withhold evidence like that when they are legally required to provide it to the Defence - why didn't the Defence approach the judge and ask him to direct the police to release the material, at the risk of the Crown being prevented from going to trial? Or did they pretend the material was "lost", or just not even acknowledge it existed? There was no way in the world the Lundy trial was a level playing field.

2. Grantham, Kelly and Ross' gross incompetence and sudden memory loss on the stand are equally infuriating, IMO all three should have been charged with contempt of court, or have been made accountable by some independent body for acting that way in a public trial.

3. The Defence should be shot. Synek's testimony was some kind of awful joke.

I think if the average intelligent New Zealander read that book, they would be shocked. I'm familiar with a lot of the case, and it even shocked me. I sincerely hope one day that the spotlight will be pointed straight at the Police, Crown, and NZ justice system, and that all participants in this awful affair are held to account.

...............................

I can email this shocker of a document to anyone who pms me with an email address. This might interest the people here who understand the Bamber travesty correctly, to see how the colony has managed to concoct an equal outrage.

Well it was contentious as to whether it could have been Central Nervous System brain matter or whether Lundy could have got it on his shirt when he fried sausages or cooked a neck of mutton or other meat product. On the radio programme it says how this must have gone over the heads of jurors and even the judge. Lundy did not testify on his own behalf, he didn't come across well anyway and there was always the fact that he had visited a prostitute that night which weighed against him and must have stuck in the jurors' minds.

Was there a technicality as Samson suggests? If you dig deep enough you might always find a procedural irregularity in any trial, but to my mind the correct verdict was reached, though Samson does mention other trials which were a miscarriage of justice.

Well it was contentious as to whether it could have been Central Nervous System brain matter or whether Lundy could have got it on his shirt when he fried sausages or cooked a neck of mutton or other meat product. On the radio programme it says how this must have gone over the heads of jurors and even the judge. Lundy did not testify on his own behalf, he didn't come across well anyway and there was always the fact that he had visited a prostitute that night which weighed against him and must have stuck in the jurors' minds.

Was there a technicality as Samson suggests? If you dig deep enough you might always find a procedural irregularity in any trial, but to my mind the correct verdict was reached, though Samson does mention other trials which were a miscarriage of justice.

It is important to realise David Bain and Mark Lundy testified at their first trials.Scott Watson wanted to but was advised not to. Ewan MacDonald did not, as he had previous form the jury were unaware of. This was an open question in an evidence lecture my daughter attended last year by Elisabeth MacDonald. I raise this because Jeremy Bamber also testified. So did David Tamihere and Arthur Thomas at his first trial, Damien Echols, Amanda Knox and so on.It is hard to persuade innocent men not to. The only one of the above who I have been unable to categorically clear of the crimes they are accused of to my satisfaction is Scott Watson.

Well it was contentious as to whether it could have been Central Nervous System brain matter or whether Lundy could have got it on his shirt when he fried sausages or cooked a neck of mutton or other meat product. On the radio programme it says how this must have gone over the heads of jurors and even the judge. Lundy did not testify on his own behalf, he didn't come across well anyway and there was always the fact that he had visited a prostitute that night which weighed against him and must have stuck in the jurors' minds.

Was there a technicality as Samson suggests? If you dig deep enough you might always find a procedural irregularity in any trial, but to my mind the correct verdict was reached, though Samson does mention other trials which were a miscarriage of justice.

Getting you're wifes brain on you're shirt while frying sausages. It does happen.

Getting you're wifes brain on you're shirt while frying sausages. It does happen.

It was not his wife's brain, it was not anyone's brain, it was not animal brain.The test used to call it brain was immunohistochemistry. The fda prohibits its use in forensics. It is used when the body tissue is known, eg take a biopsy of liver, put it in formaldehyde, and test to identify what if any specific variety of cancer presents in the sample.You must not take a fried spot on a shirt and try to establish what that spot is with immunohistochemistry. It is disappointing when you lot wade in with assertions in a case you have not studied, especially when I offer the material that settles the facts, if not the judicial proceedings.